Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 41 references

Coupled by Design: Computing Kerr-Newman Quasinormal Modes with a Hybrid SpectralPINN Solver

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A hybrid spectral-PINN solver computes Kerr-Newman black-hole quasinormal-mode frequencies across the charge-spin plane, mapping both gravitational- and vector-led branches to 1e-7 accuracy.

desk verdict Useful benchmarked solver and public KN QNM dataset, but the advertised dataset density is not credible from the stated runtime, and the eigenvalue-repulsion claims are only partially resolved. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.14216 v1 pith:7D7H2KCJ submitted 2026-07-15 gr-qc

Alexandre M. Pombo This is my paper
classification gr-qc PACS 04.70.-s04.30.-w02.70.-c
keywords Kerr-Newmanblackholesquasinormalmodesspectralmethodsphysics-informedneuralnetworkscoupledperturbationseigenvaluerepulsiongravitational-waveringdownEinsteinTelescope
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper extends a hybrid pseudo-spectral, physics-informed neural-network solver to the Kerr-Newman black hole, where gravitational and electromagnetic perturbations couple into a genuinely two-field problem. The solver produces a dense public dataset of quasinormal-mode frequencies over the sub-extremal charge-spin plane, covering five photon-sphere modes (up to l=4) in both gravitational-led and vector-led branches, plus two near-horizon modes. Benchmarks against known Kerr and Reissner-Nordström results show relative frequency errors of about 1e-7 for most modes and 1e-4 worst-case. The dataset reveals the onset of eigenvalue repulsion between mode families, rules out inter-polarization repulsion in the resolved domain, and feeds Fisher-matrix forecasts suggesting that next-generation detectors could constrain black-hole charge-to-mass ratio to about 0.2 at SNR 100. A sympathetic reader would care because this is the first systematic map of the full coupled Kerr-Newman spectrum, a clean testing ground for mode mixing and spectral reorganization in gravity.

What carries the argument

The central object is the system of two coupled linear PDEs (2.15) for the perturbation functions χs, obtained from the gauge-invariant Newman-Penrose scalars after enforcing horizon, infinity, and regularity conditions through analytic masks. SpectralPINN expands each χs in Chebyshev polynomials in both the compactified radial and angular coordinates, treating the spectral amplitudes as trainable weights. A two-stage optimization — a complex-domain Adam variant followed by a Gauss-Newton/Newton-Raphson refinement — drives the PDE residual to ~1e-12, yielding frequencies with relative errors down to 1e-9. The Q² coupling terms mix the fields and generate the gravitational-led and vector-led

What would settle it

Take a specific point in the sub-extremal plane, say (a/M, Q/M) = (0.5, 0.3), and compute the (0,2,2) gravitational-led photon-sphere frequency with an independent high-precision method (e.g., a continued-fraction approach or a separate spectral solver). If the relative difference from the released dataset exceeds about 1e-6, the claimed accuracy is not reproducible. Similarly, tracing the damping of the (1,2,2) gravitational-led mode along a constant a/a_ext = 0.7 slice with quadruple precision should show a local maximum near Q/r₊ ≈ 0.82; its absence would disprove the onset of eigenvalue re

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the coupled system of two Teukolsky-like master equations for the gravitational and electromagnetic Newman-Penrose scalars of a Kerr-Newman black hole can be solved stably and accurately with a spectral basis of Chebyshev polynomials trained as a physics-informed network. For the first time, the vector-led photon-sphere branch is computed and systematically characterized. The resulting spectrum shows the onset of an avoided crossing between the (1,2,2) photon-sphere mode and the (0,2,2) near-horizon mode, while no exceptional point appears between the two polarizations within the resolved double-precision domain. The computed charge susceptibilities, combined with

Load-bearing premise

The entire computation stands on the correctness of the adopted coupled master equations for linear gravito-electromagnetic perturbations of Kerr-Newman, taken from the literature without independent re-derivation; if those equations contain an error, every computed frequency is wrong.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the computed frequencies hold, combining the (0,2,2), (1,2,2), (0,3,3), and (0,4,4) modes in a single ringdown detection with a next-generation detector could constrain Q/M to ~0.19 at SNR 100, versus ~0.46 for a two-mode analysis.
  • The publicly released dataset provides, for the first time, both gravitational- and vector-led photon-sphere frequencies across the whole sub-extremal plane, enabling direct calibration of separable approximations and ringdown inference pipelines.
  • The turnover in the damping rate of the gravitational-led (1,2,2) mode observed near Q/r₊ ≈ 0.82 signals the onset of the expected avoided crossing, confirming the structure predicted in the literature from the photon-sphere side.
  • The absence of any coincidence between the gravitational- and vector-led branches of the m=2 modes across the resolved domain excludes one class of eigenvalue repulsion, constraining the exceptional-point framework for this system.
  • The two-stage solver improves frequency accuracy by three orders of magnitude over the previous version, making dense parameter scans of coupled black-hole perturbations practical on a single GPU in minutes per point.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: The same hybrid spectral-PINN architecture could be applied to other coupled black-hole perturbation problems where separability fails, such as scalar-tensor or massive-gravity theories; the Kerr-Newman system serves as a controlled prototype.
  • Editorial inference: Because the vector-led branch's gravitational-wave excitation is suppressed by Q², its observational relevance is limited, but its distinct charge susceptibility could matter for electromagnetic counterparts or for theories with a larger effective coupling.
  • Editorial inference: The reported Fisher forecasts assume equal SNR per mode and Gaussian noise; a full Bayesian upper-limit analysis would likely shift the absolute bounds, though the relative gain from including the overtone and near-horizon modes should persist.
  • Editorial inference: The solver's failure exactly at the avoided-crossing boundary suggests that resolving the full eigenvalue repulsion will require extended-precision arithmetic or adaptive basis enrichment — a natural next step with this dataset as a guide.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper extends the author's SpectralPINN solver to compute Kerr-Newman quasinormal modes by solving the coupled two-field master equations (2.15). It benchmarks against Kerr, Reissner-Nordström, and the a=Q diagonal, reporting typical relative frequency errors of ~1e-7 and worst case ~1e-4. It presents a public dataset of 12 mode branches over the sub-extremal (a/M,Q/M) plane, claims the first systematic characterization of the vector-led photon-sphere branch, reports the onset of eigenvalue repulsion between the PS(1,2,2) and NH(0,2,2) families, and uses Fisher information to forecast Einstein Telescope constraints on the charge-to-mass ratio.

Significance. If the dataset and its density are as claimed, the paper provides a valuable public resource for testing no-hair theorem deviations, calibrating Dudley–Finley approximations, and studying exceptional-point physics in a coupled two-field black hole system. The solver is validated against independent publicly available spectra, and both the dataset and the generating equations are released, making the results reproducible and falsifiable. The Fisher forecasts are clearly illustrative but useful for planning ringdown analyses. However, the central dataset-density claim is not yet substantiated given the stated per-point runtime, and several physical claims are carefully qualified in the text but stated more categorically in the abstract.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.1 vs. Sec. 4.1] Computational cost of the claimed dataset is not credible as written. Sec. 3.1 states a single (a/M,Q/M) solve takes 1–3 minutes; Sec. 4.1 states 27 spin slices each sampled with O(10^5) charge values, giving O(10^6–10^7) frequency evaluations per mode. This implies ~5–15 GPU-years per mode and ~60–180 GPU-years for 12 modes on the reported hardware, with no mention of parallelization, continuation, or surrogate modeling. Please provide the actual number of solves, the hardware parallelism, or an amortization argument. If the dataset is coarser, the finite-difference susceptibilities used in Sec. 4.3 and the 'systematic characterization' claim need to be re-evaluated.
  2. [Sec. 4.2, Vect-led onset] The paper claims the vector-led branch is 'systematically characterized for the first time' (Abstract, Sec. 1), but admits that for a/a_ext ~0.88–0.90 the bending of Im(ωr+) occurs at Q/Q_ext > 0.97 where 'the onset and the numerical breakdown are indistinguishable.' This near-extremal region is precisely where the new branch is most distinctive. Please restrict the characterization claim to the resolved domain, or provide a quantitative trust-region criterion (e.g., residual norm and condition number) that separates physical onset from numerical artifact.
  3. [Sec. 4.2, inter-polarization exclusion] The statement in the abstract and conclusion that the data 'exclude an inter-polarization repulsion' is stronger than the text supports. The argument relies on the absence of a local minimum in |δω| over the resolved domain, but the text notes the Vect-led branch is unresolved near extremality and the Grav-led branch also loses accuracy near the repulsion boundary. Please either add the qualifier 'within the double-precision-resolved region' to the abstract/conclusion, or demonstrate that the monotonicity of |δω| is robust against the solver's error floor.
  4. [Sec. 4.3, Fisher susceptibilities] The charge susceptibilities ∂ω/∂(Q/M)^2 are computed by numerical differentiation from the dense charge sampling. The accuracy of the Fisher bounds depends directly on these derivatives. The paper does not report the stencil used, the convergence of the derivative, or the sensitivity of the quoted (Q/M)_bound to the solver's 1e-7 frequency error. Given that the NH susceptibilities are said to vary steeply (by roughly two orders of magnitude), a small error in the derivative could change the bound substantially. Please provide the differentiation scheme and error bars on the susceptibilities, or a robustness test.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract / Sec. 4.1] The abstract says 'O(10^6–10^7) frequency evaluations per mode', but 27 spin slices with O(10^5) charge points each gives O(10^6) per mode. Please reconcile the stated range with the sampling numbers.
  2. [Eq. (2.13)] The hard-enforcement mask contains extra terms that are said to make the function smoother, but their form is not specified. Please state explicitly that these terms do not alter the asymptotic behaviors and point to the released code for the exact expressions.
  3. [References] Several references have formatting inconsistencies (e.g., refs [2], [5], and [6] in the bibliography). Please use a consistent style throughout.
  4. [Sec. 5] The statement that residual norms ~10^-12 correspond to 10^-7 relative frequency error is an empirical observation from the benchmarks, not a guaranteed relation. Please clarify that this correspondence is mode- and parameter-dependent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the frequencies are obtained by solving the published coupled KN master PDEs and are validated against external Kerr, Reissner-Nordstrom and KN datasets; no predicted quantity is equivalent by construction to a fitted input or to a self-cited uniqueness result.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: adopt the gauge-invariant coupled master system (2.6)-(2.7) from Chandrasekhar/Mark et al./Dias et al. (external literature), impose boundary conditions through the analytic mask (2.13), represent the perturbation fields in a Chebyshev basis (3.1), and minimize the PDE residuals (3.3) for the eigenvalue omega. Nothing in this chain uses the target KN frequencies as an input or fits a parameter to the quantities later claimed as predictions (Sec. 4). The charge susceptibilities feeding the Fisher forecast are finite differences of the solved frequencies, so the forecast is derived from the computation rather than used to define it. Benchmarks against [25,40], [26-28], and the a=Q diagonal [17,25] are external and independent. The self-citations to [24] (SpectralPINN, HAdamD, Fisher framework) are methodological; the solver is re-described in Sec. 3 and its KN output is cross-validated externally, so they are not load-bearing in a circular sense. Honest limitations are stated in-text: the solver cannot resolve the eigenvalue-repulsion gap in double precision (Sec. 4.2), the Vect-led NH and n=1 NH modes are unresolved (Sec. 4.1), and the near-extremal Fisher bound is 'indicative rather than a production forecast' (Sec. 4.3). The per-point runtime versus claimed dataset density is a computational-plausibility/reproducibility question, not a circularity, and the 'first systematic characterization' claim is a priority question. No step reduces an output to an input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The physical model has no free parameters beyond the spacetime parameters (M, a, Q), which are inputs. The listed free parameters are numerical discretization/convergence parameters. The main load-bearing axioms are the correctness of the master equations and the convergence of the spectral ansatz.

free parameters (4)
  • Spectral resolution N x L = 30x30
    Chosen by hand as a balance between accuracy and runtime; not fitted to target frequencies. Larger resolutions give marginal improvements.
  • Collocation oversampling factor = 3/2
    Chosen to avoid aliasing in the pseudo-spectral discretization.
  • Pseudo-inverse truncation rcond = 1e-12
    Used in the Moore-Penrose pseudo-inverse as an implicit Tikhonov regularizer; value set for numerical stability.
  • Optimizer learning-rate floor = 1e-14
    Stopping criterion for the first-order HAdamD stage; numerical convenience, not physical.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The coupled master equations (2.15) correctly describe linear gravito-electromagnetic perturbations of Kerr-Newman.
    Adopted from Chandrasekhar [33], Mark et al. [18], and Dias et al. [17]; the paper does not independently re-derive them.
  • domain assumption The perturbation fields satisfy the boundary conditions (2.10)-(2.12) and the hard-enforcement mask (2.13) captures all leading asymptotic behavior.
    Standard for QNM problems; the paper follows the procedure from [34] and previous work [24].
  • standard math The Chebyshev spectral expansion converges and the truncation N=L=30 is sufficient to achieve the claimed accuracy.
    Implicit in the solver design; supported by benchmarks but not rigorously proven in the paper.
  • domain assumption The Fisher-matrix formalism at high SNR gives a valid forecast for parameter uncertainties.
    Standard approximation; the paper notes the result is a forecast scale, not a strict frequentist threshold.
  • domain assumption The ringdown waveform is a superposition of damped sinusoids (4.1).
    Common model for QNM ringdown; ignores mode mixing, nonlinearities, and amplitude-phase correlations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Coupled by Design: Computing Kerr-Newman Quasinormal Modes with a Hybrid SpectralPINN Solver." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7D7H2KCJ

@misc{pith2026260714216,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Coupled by Design: Computing Kerr-Newman Quasinormal Modes with a Hybrid SpectralPINN Solver},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7D7H2KCJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.14216}
}
abstract

We extend our \texttt{SpectralPINN} solver to the computation of Kerr-Newman quasinormal modes by applying it to solve the system of two coupled master PDEs -- advancing from the single, separable equation of the uncharged Kerr limit to a genuinely coupled two-field problem. The coupling between the gravitational and electromagnetic fields gives rise to two families of solutions: the photon-sphere, connecting with Kerr; and near-horizon, disconnected from the Kerr limit, each with two branches of solutions depending on the leading field: the gravitational- and vector-led. Benchmarking against publicly available datasets shows relative frequency errors of $\sim 10^{-4}$ worst case and $\sim10^{-7}$ for most cases. The computed public dataset spans five photon-sphere modes, both gravitational- and vector-led, up to $\ell=4$, as well as two fundamental gravitational-led near-horizon modes. The vector-led photon-sphere branch is computed and systematically characterized for the first time. We apply the dataset and observe the onset of the eigenvalue repulsion reported by Dias \textit{et al.}, to exclude an inter-polarization repulsion within the resolved domain, and to forecast Einstein Telescope constraints on the black-hole charge-to-mass ratio.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The LIGO Scientific Collaboration and the Virgo Collaboration and the KAGRA Collaboration,Open data from LIGO, Virgo, and KAGRA through the first half of the fourth observing run,2508.18079

    arXiv

  2. [2]

    Abbott and V

    B.P.e.a.L.S.C. Abbott and V. Collaboration),Gwtc-1: A gravitational-wave transient catalog of compact binary mergers observed by ligo and virgo during the first and second observing runs, Phys. Rev. X9(2019) 031040

    2019

  3. [3]

    Abbott and V

    R.e.a.L.S.C. Abbott and V. Collaboration),Gwtc-2: Compact binary coalescences observed by ligo and virgo during the first half of the third observing run,Phys. Rev. X11(2021) 021053

    2021

  4. [4]

    Abbott, R

    V. Abbott, R. et al. (LIGO Scientific and K. Collaborations),Gwtc-3: Compact binary coalescences observed by ligo and virgo during the second half of the third observing run,arXiv preprint(2021) [2111.03606]

    arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration and KAGRA Collaboration,GWTC-4.0: Updating the Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog with Observations from the First Part of the Fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Observing Run,2508.18082

    arXiv

  6. [6]

    [7]LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration and KAGRA Collaborationcollaboration,GW250114: Testing Hawking’s Area Law and the Kerr Nature of Black Holes,Phys

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration and KAGRA Collaboration,GWTC-5.0: Observations from the Second Part of the Fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Observing Run and Updates to the Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog,2605.27225. [7]LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration and KAGRA Collaborationcollaboration,GW250114: Testing Hawking’s Area L...

    arXiv 2025

  7. [9]

    Bhagwat, M

    S. Bhagwat, M. Okounkova, M. Giesler, N. Johnson-McDaniel et al.,Detectability of black hole quasinormal modes in current and future gravitational wave detectors,Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 104032

    2020

  8. [10]

    Punturo et al.,The einstein telescope: A third-generation gravitational wave observatory, Class

    M. Punturo et al.,The einstein telescope: A third-generation gravitational wave observatory, Class. Quant. Grav.27(2010) 194002 [1002.0462]

    arXiv 2010

Show all 41 references
  1. [11]

    Evans et al.,A horizon study for cosmic explorer: Science, observatories, and community, arXiv e-prints(2021) [2109.09882]

    M. Evans et al.,A horizon study for cosmic explorer: Science, observatories, and community, arXiv e-prints(2021) [2109.09882]. – 20 –

    2021 arXiv

  2. [12]

    Hall et al.,Cosmic explorer: A next-generation ground-based gravitational-wave observatory,Galaxies10(2022) 90

    E.D. Hall et al.,Cosmic explorer: A next-generation ground-based gravitational-wave observatory,Galaxies10(2022) 90

    2022

  3. [13]

    Amaro-Seoane, H

    P. Amaro-Seoane, H. Audley, S. Babak, J. Baker, E. Barausse, P. Bender et al.,Laser interferometer space antenna,arXiv e-prints(2017) [1702.00786]

    2017 arXiv

  4. [14]

    Isi, W.M

    M. Isi, W.M. Farr, K. Chatziioannou, M. Giesler and S.A. Hughes,Testing the black-hole no-hair theorem with gravitational waves,Phys. Rev. Lett.127(2021) 011103

    2021

  5. [15]

    Teukolsky,Perturbations of a rotating black hole

    S.A. Teukolsky,Perturbations of a rotating black hole. i. fundamental equations for gravitational, electromagnetic, and neutrino-field perturbations,Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 185, pp. 635-648 (1973)185(1973) 635

    1973

  6. [16]

    Berti, V

    E. Berti, V. Cardoso and C.M. Will,Gravitational-wave spectroscopy of massive black holes with the space interferometer lisa,Phys. Rev. D73(2006) 064030

    2006

  7. [17]

    O.J. Dias, M. Godazgar and J.E. Santos,Linear mode stability of the kerr-newman black hole and its quasinormal modes,Physical review letters114(2015) 151101

    2015

  8. [18]

    Z. Mark, H. Yang, A. Zimmerman and Y. Chen,Quasinormal modes of weakly charged kerr-newman spacetimes,Physical Review D91(2015) 044025

    2015

  9. [19]

    H. Yang, A. Zimmerman, A. Zenginoğlu, F. Zhang, E. Berti and Y. Chen,Quasinormal modes of nearly extremal kerr spacetimes:<? format?> spectrum bifurcation and power-law ringdown, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology88(2013) 044047

    2013

  10. [20]

    H. Yang, F. Zhang, A. Zimmerman, D.A. Nichols, E. Berti and Y. Chen,Branching of quasinormal modes for nearly extremal kerr black holes,Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology87(2013) 041502

    2013

  11. [21]

    Zimmerman and Z

    A. Zimmerman and Z. Mark,Damped and zero-damped quasinormal modes of charged, nearly extremal black holes,Physical Review D93(2016) 044033

    2016

  12. [22]

    O.J. Dias, M. Godazgar, J.E. Santos, G. Carullo, W. Del Pozzo and D. Laghi,Eigenvalue repulsions in the quasinormal spectra of the kerr-newman black hole,Physical Review D105 (2022) 084044

    2022

  13. [23]

    Y. Yang, E. Berti and N. Franchini,Black hole quasinormal mode resonances,arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.06072(2025)

    2025

  14. [24]

    Pombo and L

    A.M. Pombo and L. Pizzuti,Teukolsky by design: A hybrid spectral-pinn solver for kerr quasinormal modes,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2026(2026) 009

    2026

  15. [25]

    Berti,Ringdown, 2009

    E. Berti,Ringdown, 2009

    2009

  16. [26]

    Leaver,Quasinormal modes of reissner-nordström black holes,Physical Review D41 (1990) 2986

    E.W. Leaver,Quasinormal modes of reissner-nordström black holes,Physical Review D41 (1990) 2986

    1990

  17. [27]

    Kokkotas and B.F

    K.D. Kokkotas and B.F. Schutz,Black-hole normal modes: A wkb approach. iii. the reissner-nordström black hole,Physical Review D37(1988) 3378

    1988

  18. [28]

    Matyjasek and M

    J. Matyjasek and M. Opala,Quasinormal modes of black holes: The improved semianalytic approach,Physical Review D96(2017) 024011

    2017

  19. [29]

    Pombo,Kerr–Newman quasinormal-mode dataset: coupled gravito-electromagnetic modes from a hybrid SpectralPINN solver, 2026

    A.M. Pombo,Kerr–Newman quasinormal-mode dataset: coupled gravito-electromagnetic modes from a hybrid SpectralPINN solver, 2026. 10.5281/zenodo.21359120

    2026 doi

  20. [30]

    O.J. Dias, M. Godazgar and J.E. Santos,Eigenvalue repulsions and quasinormal mode spectra of kerr-newman: an extended study,arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.13072(2022)

    2022 arXiv

  21. [31]

    Kokkotas and B.G

    K.D. Kokkotas and B.G. Schmidt,Quasi-normal modes of stars and black holes,Living Reviews in Relativity2(1999) 2

    1999

  22. [32]

    Ishak,Gravitational waves volume 2: astrophysics and cosmology,Contemporary Physics (2018)

    B. Ishak,Gravitational waves volume 2: astrophysics and cosmology,Contemporary Physics (2018) . – 21 –

    2018

  23. [33]

    Chandrasekhar and K.S

    S. Chandrasekhar and K.S. Thorne,The mathematical theory of black holes, 1985

    1985

  24. [34]

    R. Luna, J. Calderón Bustillo, J.J. Seoane Martínez, A. Torres-Forne and J.A. Font,Solving the teukolsky equation with physics-informed neural networks,Physical Review D107(2023) 064025

    2023

  25. [35]

    Leaver,An analytic representation for the quasi-normal modes of kerr black holes, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London

    E.W. Leaver,An analytic representation for the quasi-normal modes of kerr black holes, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences402(1985) 285

    1985

  26. [36]

    Blázquez-Salcedo, F.S

    J.L. Blázquez-Salcedo, F.S. Khoo, J. Kunz and L.M. González-Romero,Quasinormal modes of kerr black holes using a spectral decomposition of the metric perturbations,Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) 064028

    2024

  27. [37]

    Mason and D.C

    J.C. Mason and D.C. Handscomb,Chebyshev Polynomials, Chapman & Hall/CRC (2003)

    2003

  28. [38]

    C. Finn, P. Abbeel and S. Levine,Model-agnostic meta-learning for fast adaptation of deep networks, inProceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pp. 1126–1135, 2017 [1703.03400]

    2017 arXiv

  29. [39]

    Jacot, F

    A. Jacot, F. Gabriel and C. Hongler,Neural tangent kernel: Convergence and generalization in neural networks, inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), vol. 31, 2018 [1806.07572]

    2018 arXiv

  30. [40]

    Berti, V

    E. Berti, V. Cardoso and A.O. Starinets,Quasinormal modes of black holes and black branes, Class. Quant. Grav.26(2009) 163001 [0905.2975]

    2009 arXiv

  31. [41]

    Dudley and J.D

    A.L. Dudley and J.D. Finley, III,Separation of wave equations for perturbations of general type-D space-times,Phys. Rev. Lett.38(1977) 1505

    1977

  32. [42]

    Dudley and J.D

    A.L. Dudley and J.D. Finley, III,Covariant perturbed wave equations in arbitrary type-D backgrounds,J. Math. Phys.20(1979) 311

    1979

  33. [43]

    Saha and H.O

    S. Saha and H.O. Silva,Quasinormal modes of Kerr–Newman black holes: Revisiting the Dudley–Finley approximation,Phys. Rev. D113(2026) 064009 [2510.05354]. A Dataset Heatmap This appendix collects the complete set of KN QNM frequency surfaces computed in this work. For each mod...

    2026 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.